Chennai ITAT held that dismissing appeals as non-maintainable was erroneous. Orders giving effect to appellate directions retain their character as assessment orders.
The question was whether the extended ten-year window under Section 153C could be invoked. The Tribunal held that where the satisfaction note shows escaped income below ₹50 lakh, the extended limitation is unavailable.
The ITAT noted that cash-flow statements showing withdrawal–redeposit nexus were not examined. Non-consideration of material evidence warranted remand.
The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is invalid. Such a defect strikes at the root of the assessment and cannot be cured.
The issue was whether handwritten lists and affidavits of relatives were sufficient to explain cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled that self-serving documents without independent corroboration carry no evidentiary value under PMLA.
The Supreme Court ruled that denying regularization to certain ad-hoc employees while others were regularized was discriminatory. The Court reinstated the affected staff and granted full employment benefits under Article 142.
The tribunal confirmed liability for Hawala transactions under FEMA but reduced the penalty from Rs. 23 Cr to Rs. 7 Cr, emphasizing proportionality in enforcement.
The ITAT held that capital gains under Section 50C cannot be mechanically applied where a sale deed is alleged to be an erroneous document and no real transfer occurred. The case was remanded to verify whether the transaction was actually a gift with no consideration or possession transfer.
The case involved reassessment based on alleged cash payment for property. The Tribunal held that basic fact-checking is mandatory before confirming a ₹71.23 lakh addition under Section 69A.
The Supreme Court held that High Courts cannot examine whether a cheque was issued for a debt while quashing proceedings. The statutory presumption under Section 139 must be rebutted only during trial.
